NEW DELHI: Contrary to speculations and expectations - the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), it seems is unlikely to make a definitive recommendation on introduction of addressability, leaving the government to take a final call from at least three options.
The three options being touted by the regulator include partial price control in those areas where it is deemed fit to do through introduction of addressability. But all these options also come with their inherent drawbacks.
Reason for these options: one system of addressability cannot be feasible for the whole country, though in the long run the system is the best way to bring about transparency in the industry.
It is also likely to suggest, according to sources in the government, that making available content on a non-discriminatory basis to all platforms should be opted for. But this condition too comes with some riders.
Interestingly, taking a leaf from the telecom industry, the broadcast and cable sector regulator also feels that inter-connect agreements (read commercial agreements) between a local cable op and a MSO, and a MSO and a broadcaster be registered with a designated authority and should be in the public domain in those areas where conditional access system (Cas) would be implemented.
The regulator feels that at the moment there is no coherent revenue sharing mechanism existing in the broadcast and cable industry and that in case of Cas, involvement of state government is a must. This can also be interpreted as those states preferring Cas could introduce and implement it.
Trai, is all for "transparent discounts" being offered by broadcasters and service providers to consumers, but such discounts should not exceed 20 per cent of the total price of a bouquet in case of broadcasters.
The regulator, which is yet to submit its much-awaited recommendations to the government (information and broadcasting ministry) and make it public, also feels that the concept of minimum guarantee in case of an agreement between an MSO and broadcaster should not be allowed as its anti-competitive. As part of its objectives, Trai feels that the aim of its recommendations should be to make available more choice to the consumer, services at affordable prices and investments for the overall good of the industry.
The regulator, is also likely to root for the fact that though content should be made available on a nondiscriminatory basis to all platforms, it would not apply on defaulters. In case of direct-to-home (DTH) TV services, for example, this clause would come into play when there are at least two operational licences in the field.
Additionally, it would be suggested that one administrative official is appointed in every state to oversee the implementation of the must-provide clause and interfere also in the affairs of the industry if the latter is unable to sort out issues within itself.
Moreover, if a service has to be withdrawn by a content provider, it needs to be advertised properly through ads in the local newspapers and after serving a 30-day notice. On the issue of regulating advertisements on pay channels, the regulator is likely to opine that it should be left to self-regulation as most channels adhere to an international model of between 10-12 minutes of commercial airtime every one hour.
In its draft recommendations, Trai has quoted Taiwan's example at various places and also stated that the prices of pay channels have grown at a CAGR of 70-80 per cent since 1993.
